Editorial: Vacaville City Council ends year with thud

Let's face it, most residents probably don't care much about who serves as Vacaville's vice mayor or how long that individual keeps the title. But the way that the mayor and City Council recently went about setting the term of service for the position should raise eyebrows throughout all quadrants of the city.

First Mayor Steve Hardy attempted to unilaterally impose a new term of office -- as if he alone had the power to make the decision.

Then he left it up to other council members to propose and adopt the change -- never mind that such a vote wasn't included on the agenda, which is the only way the public generally finds out that something official is about to happen before it does.

The brief discussion which ensued hinted that at least some council members may have been engaged in longer talks about the idea -- outside of the public view. That raises questions about members' adherence to California's Brown Act, which strives to ensure that public matters are decided in public.

Finally, whether intentional or not, the whole thing smacked of sexism, since the mayor didn't raise the idea of making the traditional two-year term a one-year position until after Dilenna Harris, the only woman on the council, was nominated for it. Then, when she protested, the mayor patronizingly apologized for "upsetting" her and said she shouldn't take it "personally."

For as long as anyone can remember, the vice mayor had been chosen every other December by the entire council to serve for two years -- essentially, from election to election. Apparently, however, no one ever wrote down the terms of service for the job. Nor are there any state laws regarding the matter, City Manager Laura Kuhn told the council that night, adding, "We've looked into it."

And that begs the question: If city staff had time to look into it, why wasn't the proposal to make it a one-year term put on the agenda so that the council -- and any interested citizen -- might discuss it fully? Even that night, Councilman Curtis Hunt raised a question of how a vice mayor might be removed from office, should he or she engage in behavior that would reflect poorly on the council. From the mayor's response, it seems he still believes he has the authority to take the title away.

Ideally, a full discussion about this topic would have taken place months ago. The next-best scenario would have been a discussion at the Dec. 11 meeting, with a decision taking effect in two years.

Instead, the council ended up with no discussion and a decision that smacks of politics at its worst.

Of course, at this point, there's nothing to prevent Harris from being nominated for the job next year. If the mayor and the council expect that the position will be rotated around, they might want to actually write down some procedures before next December.